If Kobe Bryant were an accused man by any other
name, there would be no question of his right to face his accuser at his
Oct. 9 preliminary hearing in Eagle, Colo.

But Bryant is not a nameless John Doe; he is a basketball
superstar, and his legal travails are anything but ordinary. His Sixth
Amendment rights allow him the right to call his accuser to testify at
his preliminary hearing. At the hearing, the judge determines if there
is enough evidence for a trial.

Bryant's attorneys have subpoenaed his 19-year-old
accuser to appear at the hearing, a move fought vigorously by the Eagle
County District Attorney who instead proposes having the woman appear
by videotape.

Throughout his legal proceedings, Bryant has seen
evidence that he will not be treated with the same consideration given
to an unknown defendant. To date, he has been required to personally appear
before the court at his arraignment, a formality that the district attorney
would have foregone in a lesser-known out-of-state defendant charged with
the same offense.

The latest move by District Attorney Mark Hurlbert
to tread on Bryant's Sixth Amendment rights does not bode well for the
basketball star's rights to a fair trial. For all of his money and fame,
Bryant will not get a fair adjudication of the charges he now faces, and
he has ever reason to be afraid.

The timing of Bryant's legal troubles could not
come at a worse time: The Colorado Springs U.S. Air Force Academy has
been embroiled in its own sex abuse allegations, and all eyes are on Bryant
to see whether the D.A. will take a tough line against sexual assault
allegations.

The U.S. Constitution affords defendants the right
to face their accusers and to due process so that the court can size up
their testimony, their personal credibility and any forensic tests that
may be available. Bryant's case rests largely on the testimony of his
teenage accuser, and allowing her to forego a personal appearance at the
hearing will deny Bryant's attorneys a chance to question her, and for
the judge to assess whether her testimony is believable, which is infinitely
more difficult to discern in a videotaped testimony.

Instead, the D.A. proposes offering live testimony
of the Sexual Abuse Nurse Examiner - a victim's advocate - as to the alleged
victim's state of mind and physical injuries. As a victim's advocate,
the nurse cannot be expected to give an unbiased accounting of facts and
details. Her job is to support and believe the victim. "Innocent until
proven guilty" is simply not in her job description.

Ironically, accused killer Scott Peterson has a
better chance at justice than Bryant. Peterson's case rests largely on
forensic evidence, meaning that he can bring in his own legal experts
to examine the evidence and testify as to their own conclusions about
its meaning and relevance. Bryant has admitted to committing adultery
with his accuser, leaving the D.A. to prove the rape largely through the
woman's own words, a so-called "he said, she said."

Bryant will be forced to prove a negative - that
he did not rape his accuser - which puts him at a huge disadvantage at
trial. The D.A.'s experts will undoubtedly provide emphatic support of
the charge against Bryant, as the prosecution has a built in confirmatory
bias, where it seeks to identify evidence and information that supports
its allegations rather that provide an independent investigations of the
facts and personalities involved.

If Bryant is to have a fair trial, it will be up
to him to cut the D.A.'s biased experts off at the pass: Bryant must commission
his own experts to conduct an examination of the facts. Having guided
thousands of clients facing sex-abuse allegations over the past 10 years,
I have found that the only way to ensure freedom for those innocent of
sex-abuse allegations is to undergo a specific battery of testing , including
a penile plethysmograph - a test that measures an individual's propensity
toward sexual offenses - administered by an independent examiner, in addition
to psychological and other forensic testing by independent experts not
beholden to the prosecutor's agenda.

Unfortunately for Bryant, fame has only brought
him greater and unfair legal challenges. Proving his innocence will cost
Bryant a great deal of money, his privacy and, most likely, his reputation.

Fame may have its perks. Too bad for Kobe Bryant,
justice is not one of them.

Dean Tong is a nationally known forensic consultant
and author of the critically acclaimed book Elusive Innocence (Alpha Publishing,
2002). He may be reached at 1-800-854-0735 or via his website www.abuse-excuse.com
E-Mail: DeanTong@aol.com

"The U.S. Constitution affords
defendants the right to face their accusers...

Bryant's attorneys have subpoenaed
his 19-year-old accuser to appear at the hearing, a move fought vigorously
by the Eagle County District Attorney who instead proposes having the
woman appear by videotape."